PARVATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Parvati Devi and her mother Smt. Jhupali Devi have challenged their order of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Champawat on 08.02.2011 in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2010. The said trial pertains to crime No. 3/2010, Patti Circle Devidhura, District Champawat, whereby both the appellants, along with two others, were tried for the offences u/s. 304 and 201 IPC. Third accused Keshar Singh was the husband of Smt. Jhupali Devi while fourth accused Madan Singh was the so -called paramour of Smt. Parvati Devi. At the end of trial, Keshar Singh and Madan Singh were acquitted whereas, the appellants were found guilty for the said offences. They have appropriately been sentenced by the Trial Judge. As the prosecution tale goes, appellant Smt. Parvati Devi, in the prime of her life, was wedded with PW1 Sunder Singh on 07.03.2010. As per local customs, she along with her husband returned to her parents' house on 8.3.2010. There were some 7 -10 members of family of PW1, and thus, being the guests of Parvati's native home, they were staying there.

(2.) IN the noon hours of 9.3.2010, PW1 along with some other family members heard the screams of a newly born baby coming out from the room. PW1 asked his aunt Smt. Chani Devi (PW3) to go inside the house and enquire about the facts. On this, PW3 went on the room located on the first floor of the house where Smt. Parvati was present. PW3 found that the clothes of Smt. Parvati besides other parts of room were smeared with blood. PW3 soon realized that appellant Smt. Parvati had given birth to a baby. Meanwhile, appellant Smt. Jhupali Devi (mother of Smt. Parvati), who was cooking food outside the room, also came there.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned amicus curiae on behalf of Smt. Parvati Devi and learned senior counsel on behalf of Smt. Jhupali Devi nay the State counsel, the Court feels that the instant case is a travail tale of an unfortunate traumatized lady Smt. Parwati and all the more, attributing the guilt upon her, inasmuch as to the extent of Section 304 IPC, is the travesty of justice. The entire case is based upon the evidence of PW1 Sunder Singh (husband), PW2 Smt. Jivanti Devi (mother of PW1), PW3 Smt. Chani Devi (aunt of PW1), PW4 Smt. Devki Devi (also an aunt of PW1), PW5 Smt. Vimla Devi (elder sister of PW1) and PW6 Chatur Singh (uncle of PW1). Out of them, PW3 Smt. Chani Devi was the first entrant in the room of appellant Smt. Parvati, who having had entered in the room, found some blood -splashes, along with a newly born baby, kept preserved beneath a winnower. PW3 lifted that blood -soaked child from that place, took him in her lap and came out. Meanwhile, one Mr. Vikram, cousin brother of Smt. Parvati appeared who snatched that newly born baby from the hands of PW3 and escaped. Subsequently, he threw that baby somewhere and later on, only his dead body could be recovered. In her evidence, PW3 has categorically stated that he did not see either Smt. Jhupali Devi or Smt. Parvati Devi causing any injury to the infant. Except PW3, PW2 Smt. Jiwanti Devi, PW4 Smt. Devki Devi and PW5 Smt. Vimla Devi entered in the room a bit later and could make themselves aware about the happening in the house only when Vikram had escaped along with the newly born baby. So, they could not testify any fact as regards causing any injury to the infant by either of these appellants. In these circumstances, how the Trial Judge could ascribe guilt upon these appellants cannot be thought over by any judicial mind.